It's a poorly formed question, and journalism in general is not a good venue for exploring the actual multiple questions that must be answered to get at the ost

It's a poorly formed question, and journalism in general is not a good venue for exploring the actual multiple questions that must be answered to get at the ostensible question in the title, much less the answers to those questions. An adequate addressing of the topic would need to start, at minimum, with defining with great specificity the following terms as applied to this problems: Force (which mechanisms, legal, physical, social, etc) Treatment (Chemical? Talk therapy & its many varieties? Simple protection from oneself, or others from the subject?) Mentally Ill (As classified by the DSM-V? Some other formal source? Who makes the diagnosis, what if there are competing diagnosis from different practitioners? Does the State get a say in this definition?) Humane (A vague concept whose specific definition, often also a bit vague, will vary by context: In the US it is considered humane to euthanize animals in pain that cannot be cured, or with terminal conditions, or some combination thereof. Doing so to humans, even with their consent, is highly controversial. And yet suicide hangs silently over many discussions of mental illness, and too often mental illness is resistant to treatment to the point of torture for the person experiencing it, even with their full & willing consent to any treatment that might help their cause. Further there is the same question of who decides what humane gets to mean, both in general and as applied in specific circumstances.) This barely scratches the surface, all I've done is identify items in a short headline that need defining, and each of those could take countless person-hours of discussion & debate and still not be settled in a meaningful way in which most parties agreed.